[governance] Caucus process comment

[Ewan SUTHERLAND]

I think you need some idea of the functioning of a forum to decide on
possible funding options. If it needs a secretariat or translation, then
money is a significant issue. If it needs to support participation from
those considered deserving of fellowships, again it needs money. If it
is to meet in one place or to be a perpetual road show, that has
implications on funding.

Should it have a clear source of funding or should it rely on donations
which might to some extent shape its agenda and activities?

The UN ICT TF is a body the funding of which I have never understood.
There is a statement to ECOSOC that it would not require UN funds, but I
have not seen a public statement of where it gets its money.

Ewan


> 
> I do agree with Victorio's suggestion of non-binding recommendations as 
> a potential output of such forum. The forum has a better chance to be 
> taken seriously if produces something.
> 
> I also agree that the forum should be dealt with independently from the 
> WSIS follow up process. On the other hand, I wonder if considerations 
> regarding the forum's structure wouldn't benefit from some form of 
> organizational model or predecessor. Couldn't we take a process like the 
> UN ICT TF as a starting point that helps us specify in practical terms 
> what the new forum could look like?
> 
> Milton mentioned funding. I remember Wolfgang saying that we should not 
> assume any institutional funding, and that all participants need to come 
> up with their own resources. Other people thought the forum should be 
> able to commission research projects and build up competence similar to 
> what the OECD does. It seems clear that the funding more or less 
> determines what such a forum can do.
> jeanette
> 
> 
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> > 
> >>It seems to me that what the caucus should be discussing now is the
> >>structure, methods and nature of the proposed multistakeholder forum.
> >>There seems to be agreement with the WGIG report on its creation. But do
> >>we have, or can we develop, coherent ideas about how it operates, how it
> >>might be funded? Can we identify "wrong turns" in its design that would
> >>defeat its purpose or undermine its goals, so that we can be prepared to
> >>advocate against them at Prepcom 3? 
> > 
> > 
> > The first couple of "wrong turns" I would see (as I pointed out 
> > previously) are:
> > 
> > - this forum is melted into or associated with the broader WSIS 
> > follow-up / Global Alliance / UN ICT TF evolution
> > 
> > - this forum is not given any clear organizational structure and 
> > decision making process
> > 
> > I think we should strongly and clearly advocate against these two 
> > possibilities.
> > 
> > About ideas for its practical structure, I think that the forum should 
> > have a multi-stakeholder WGIG-like coordination/steering group, and the 
> > ability to support bottom-up working groups based on rough
consensus, in 
> > the IETF style.
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 


-- 
Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
http://intug.net/ewan.html
callto://sutherla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance